Skype’s problem now is maintaining growth. The second challenge is to get Skypers to adopt premium services and think about dropping their home phone. There are many barriers to this. The PC must be always on. There is currently no embedded Skype device. People just don't want to lose their numbers. Free local calling may apply and be an advantage, as is 911. Many early adopters that have Skype have not yet added SkypeIn (lack of numbers availability) or SkypeOut, as they aren’t making either enough calls, or they are making them on another service.

Let’s consider what a Skype partnership with PhoneGnome would enable:

1. Home Phone numbers to be associated with Skype accounts. Thus every PhoneGnome activated with a Skype Account would 1) ring when the home phone rings (anywhere!) and 2) provide cheap SkypeOut rates when dialing out of your local calling area with the home phone. Thus more integrated than doing what I now do. Which is run SoftGnome and Skype concurrently.

2. Backup/Skype solution for when a computer is not operating. All Skype calls would ring the home phone. This is no different that Skype’s call forwarding option that is offered now. However the ring for this service would be free. Device availability could be communicated as well.

3. It would substitute SkypeOut for creating an agreement with another ITSP. It would also enable dial by number for all Skypers who also have PhoneGnome. This would result in many more SkypeOut minutes being used.

4. New service opportunities for the family are opened up. Currently SkypeIn numbers appeal to a small audience. Eg a business line, or access in other countries. Create a SkypeGnome strategy and the opportunity for additional services that cater to each member is increased. Eg one home line, four extensions. Voice Mail on Skype etc.

From my perspective it’s easy. It’s also easy to test. Probably easier for Yahoo who’s IM platform is more SIP centric than Skype's. People don’t like changing their phone numbers. It’s a pain. PhoneGnome reduces the barrier and requires no permission from the current operator or regulators. That’s a strategic advantage.

Skype Gift Certificates came out of beta testing yesterday. You can use your Skype credits to pay for someone else's Skype products.

While they make fine holiday gifts, there are a few limits in this early release. Not everyone can buy a gift certificate: you must be a Skype user, your account must be in good standing (at least with Skype's credit department), you must have been using your Skype account for three months, and you must use Euros as your Skype money setting. You don't need your giftee's permission, but they do need a Skype account. [note to self: work on the London branch of the family to get on Skype.]

When you give a gift, you get a 3% rebate. This is enough of a margin that some people and companies will probably become resellers of Skype Gift Certificates, at least for people who trust them. At least one company is experimenting with this, so a new channel of distribution for Skype may be on the way.

This release of Skype Certificates and Skype Groups is an important milestone for Skype. It paves the way for elegant and rich business and technical architectures for commerce. Edge commerce (pay a dollar for my time or my file), reputation management, currency arbitrage, dispute resolution, identity services, and market making. All with web services and APIs for developers to build Skype's commerce into their own sites, software, and gadgets.

Short term, this could wind up booking purchases of Skype products to eBay's Fourth Quarter. Since they are prepaid services, I don't know if the money received goes on the books as revenue or debt. The SkypeOut TOS says Skype will refund money if asked. Does Skype get to keep unclaimed money? Or does Skype only get to reflect the revenue when a service is consumed or a prepaid account is abandoned?

See also:

• Skype's announcement
• Bill Campbell's first take on their announcement
• Skype Gift Certificate FAQ
• Skype Gift Certificate forum
• Skype Journal articles on commerce
• Skype Journal's translation of the SkypeOut Terms Of Service

Skype has an online survey up. It's all about habits and practices - but there seems to have been little thinking on and stretch in terms of options, scales, wants and wishlists. It's not well designed, poorly structured, with many gaps in areas covered, and no real behavioural information being collected. A wasted opportunity!

Just because online surveys are simple doesn't mean they shouldn't be well thought out. It's also more dangerous to have information that is incomplete or poorly collected than to have no information at all. Unfortunately many organisations fall into this trap. There is down and dirty research -- this is not it.

Breaking down the survey to understand the gaps further, there are problems in several areas :

1. Areas of Coverage :

* No demographic profiling - age, gender, income, etc - to contextualise responses

* Inadequate coverage of Skype's offerings - what about conference calling, chat and multi-chat, Skype on PDA's, Skype API, forums - areas of satisfaction and problems with them? For instance, how many have made a conference call with SkypeOut - one problem could be tackling DTMF tones

* No behavioural information of depth and value like buddy lists, minutes and hours spent on each feature, how many failed calls, what percentage is acceptable, what percentage local vs international calls, whether Skype is set to a call-centric or chat-centric mode, etc

* No developer products included : video chat, presence servers, outlook import, other plugins. These form a vital part of the total offering from a customer's point of view, and make the Skype experience richer - it would have been interesting to study awareness, usage and motivations for them.

* No feature comparisons with other products competing in the same space from a user's perspective - IM, other VOIP offerings, even landlines and cell phones - resulting in answers in a vacuum without benchmarks and best-in-class standards that always make responses so much more reliable and meaningful, particularly when satisfaction is involved. For instance, would you say your Skype billing experience is better than or worse than your current cellular provider? Landline carrier? Amazon? Other? NA? What's your best billing experience online?

* Very little space offered for opportunities to improve

* Even less on what Skype really means to users today and how is it changing the way they communicate, impact on their communication behaviour and habits.

* Branding and positioning issues - how is Skype positioned in the customer's mind? What associations, what image, what relationship, strength of stickiness and loyalty? I know Skype is beginning to think of brand - and that's a great step. I also hope that they remember the brand is not just what the company communicates, but as it rests in user's minds and hearts and leaves it imprints. I'd have loved to see some brand-related questions here.

2. Questionnaire design and structure:

* Options and choices (dropdown boxes) provided seem inadequate in most areas. The connection speed options are not customer friendly. Reasons for using don't include - for business, for travel, for connecting with family abroad etc. Another instance:

Why did you start using Skype Voicemail? (check all that apply)

Thought it was cool

Wanted to save money

Wanted to call people abroad

Other

These options make little sense in the context of voicemail - none of the potential reasons for using Voicemail are listed in the options. It seems like these questions have been dumped blindly from the earlier SkypeOut section.

* Areas for improvement in all sections are left as an open-ended space; some amount of stimulus for thought might have been provided for generating more meaningful suggestions. For instance, for Voicemail, there are so many possiblities - from saving copies to sending group messages or not having to listen to your message for the 5th time when sending.

* Scale used for satisfaction - the 3-point scale : very satisfied-satisfied-not satisfied again doesn't really offer up much - first, there aren't enough gradations to really determine satisfaction to make it a good customer service scale and second, satisfaction must always be measured against perceived benchmarks, without which it can be meaningless.